OMB Proposal Threatens Vermont’s $8.6 Billion Budget as Political Appointees Gain Control of $1 Trillion Grants
Updated
Updated · VTDigger · Jul 20
OMB Proposal Threatens Vermont’s $8.6 Billion Budget as Political Appointees Gain Control of $1 Trillion Grants
2 articles · Updated · VTDigger · Jul 20
Summary
More than one-third of Vermont’s $8.6 billion budget could face new uncertainty under an OMB rule that would let senior political appointees review federal grants against presidential priorities starting in October.
The proposal would demote peer review to an advisory role, allow grants to be terminated mid-project with brief explanations, and ban funding tied to “unlawful DEI practices,” some gender-related research and international collaborations.
UVM said the change could hit most of its roughly $250 million in annual research funding, chilling long-term projects from cancer and diabetes studies to flood and climate research because infrastructure-heavy grants could be pulled at any time.
Hospitals, housing groups, municipalities and child-care nonprofits in Vermont warned the rule could disrupt patient care, flood rebuilding and an $8 million preschool grant, with smaller organizations especially strained by new compliance and reimbursement requirements.
The administration says the overhaul would improve accountability and stop misuse of tax dollars, but Vermont officials and researchers say it politicizes grant-making and could trigger legal challenges, echoing broader national opposition to the nearly $1 trillion plan.
What are the hidden economic costs of dismantling the nation's scientific research infrastructure over the next decade?
As American scientists seek opportunities abroad, which nations are best positioned to become the next global science superpower?
Politicizing $1.2 Trillion: The Trump OMB Grant Rule’s Threat to Science, Local Services, and Democracy
Overview
The Trump administration’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) introduced a proposed rule that has sparked widespread concern and immediate backlash, mainly because it would increase political control over federal grantmaking. A core provision would make peer review recommendations non-binding, raising fears about the erosion of expert-driven decisions in critical areas like public health and research. About 60% of commenters opposed the rule due to its political influence, and a third specifically objected to the changes in peer review. This has led to deep concerns that the rule could undermine the integrity and effectiveness of the federal grant system.